OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal

Our item yesterday on the Democrats' antimilitary attitude prompted
this response from reader Scott Wallace:

Your discussion reminded me of a friend's decision to follow anything
negative he said with, "But I support the troops!" If he didn't like
the meal he just ate, he would follow his complaint with "But I
support the troops!" Complaints about a bad parking spot? "But I
support the troops!"

It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in which Jerry and George
were suspected of being gay. Throughout the whole show, anytime
anything potentially negative towards homosexuals was mentioned,
someone would say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" This
would give them coverage to be as vicious or insensitive toward the
gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. In later interviews,
Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was added in to the scripts
late just to give them coverage. It was a wink to political
correctness, and it was funny because you knew it was just a wink.

Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they want about this
war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war atrocities by the
troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war is unwinnable--as long
as they follow up with, "But I support the troops!" Every time I hear
them say they support the troops I think of that "Seinfeld" episode.
Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, calculated to give them
coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny because you knew he didn't
really mean it, and such is becoming the case with the Democrats.

Democrats don't seem to understand that they're in danger of becoming
a tag-line joke.

This is an excellent idea. We may even be able to work it into our
John Kerry* footnotes.

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
supports the troops!

--

Scott in Florida

In article <k1aop1t5h58rh19a4bock786hth1jii53c@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal
>
> Our item yesterday on the Democrats' antimilitary attitude prompted
> this response from reader Scott Wallace:
>
> Your discussion reminded me of a friend's decision to follow anything
> negative he said with, "But I support the troops!" If he didn't like
> the meal he just ate, he would follow his complaint with "But I
> support the troops!" Complaints about a bad parking spot? "But I
> support the troops!"
>
> It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in which Jerry and George
> were suspected of being gay. Throughout the whole show, anytime
> anything potentially negative towards homosexuals was mentioned,
> someone would say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" This
> would give them coverage to be as vicious or insensitive toward the
> gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. In later interviews,
> Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was added in to the scripts
> late just to give them coverage. It was a wink to political
> correctness, and it was funny because you knew it was just a wink.
>
> Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they want about this
> war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war atrocities by the
> troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war is unwinnable--as long
> as they follow up with, "But I support the troops!" Every time I hear
> them say they support the troops I think of that "Seinfeld" episode.
> Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, calculated to give them
> coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny because you knew he didn't
> really mean it, and such is becoming the case with the Democrats.
>
> Democrats don't seem to understand that they're in danger of becoming
> a tag-line joke.
>
> This is an excellent idea. We may even be able to work it into our
> John Kerry* footnotes.
>
> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
> supports the troops![/color]

Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".

Democrates, we are on to you.
--

What does this have to do with Toyota?

Gary Eickmeier

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal
>
> Our item yesterday on the Democrats' antimilitary attitude prompted
> this response from reader Scott Wallace:[/color]

Now you hate Jews?

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
[color=blue]
> In article <k1aop1t5h58rh19a4bock786hth1jii53c@4ax.com>,
> Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
>> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
>> supports the troops![/color][/color]

What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
record?
[color=blue]
>
> Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
>
> Democrates, we are on to you.[/color]

Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:33:05 -0500, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichDOTDOTDOT@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
>[color=green]
>> In article <k1aop1t5h58rh19a4bock786hth1jii53c@4ax.com>,
>> Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>>[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>
>>> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
>>> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
>>> supports the troops![/color][/color]
>
>What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
>dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
>record?[/color]

Look and listen to John 'the traitor' Kerry and you will see what is
meant by the term French Looking...

He is a surrender monkey...and a traitor!

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>
>> Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
>>
>> Democrates, we are on to you.[/color]
>
>Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.
>[/color]
--

Scott in Florida

In article <pan.2005.12.11.17.33.04.430802@gmail.com>,
"Learning Richard" <learningrichDOTDOTDOT@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
>[color=green]
> > In article <k1aop1t5h58rh19a4bock786hth1jii53c@4ax.com>,
> > Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
> >[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>
> >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
> >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
> >> supports the troops![/color][/color]
>
> What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
> dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
> record?
>[color=green]
> >
> > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
> >
> > Democrates, we are on to you.[/color]
>
> Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.[/color]

It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
for at this time.
--

"The benevolent dbu" <relaxand@smelltheroses.com> wrote in message
news:relaxand-68DE48.15292311122005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <pan.2005.12.11.17.33.04.430802@gmail.com>,
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichDOTDOTDOT@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > In article <k1aop1t5h58rh19a4bock786hth1jii53c@4ax.com>,
>> > Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>> >[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >>
>> >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
>> >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
>> >> supports the troops![/color]
>>
>> What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the
>> absolutely
>> dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
>> record?
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
>> >
>> > Democrates, we are on to you.[/color]
>>
>> Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.[/color]
>
> It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
> for at this time.
> --
>
>
>
>[/color]

Hell, I've been referring to them as:

Commucrats
Bolsheviks
Demoncrats
Demonrats
etc
for more than 30 years now. . . .

Charles
Friends don't let friends vote Democratic.

The benevolent dbu wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <pan.2005.12.11.17.33.04.430802@gmail.com>,
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichDOTDOTDOT@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > In article <k1aop1t5h58rh19a4bock786hth1jii53c@4ax.com>,
> > > Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
> > >[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > >>
> > >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
> > >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
> > >> supports the troops![/color]
> >
> > What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
> > dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
> > record?
> >[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
> > >
> > > Democrates, we are on to you.[/color]
> >
> > Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.[/color]
>
> It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
> for at this time.[/color]

Oh. You don't know how to spell then. Just like your genius buddy
Charles of Kanker Sore.

Here allow me to help.

d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t

And here's how you spell Republican:

f-e-l-o-n

In article <1134340444.234561.121720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> The benevolent dbu wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <pan.2005.12.11.17.33.04.430802@gmail.com>,
> > "Learning Richard" <learningrichDOTDOTDOT@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
> > >
> > > > In article <k1aop1t5h58rh19a4bock786hth1jii53c@4ax.com>,
> > > > Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
> > > >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
> > > >> supports the troops!
> > >
> > > What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
> > > dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
> > > record?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
> > > >
> > > > Democrates, we are on to you.
> > >
> > > Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.[/color]
> >
> > It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
> > for at this time.[/color]
>
> Oh. You don't know how to spell then. Just like your genius buddy
> Charles of Kanker Sore.
>
> Here allow me to help.
>
> d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t
>
> And here's how you spell Republican:
>
> f-e-l-o-n[/color]

rich is not following along again.
--

>by Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> Dec >11, 2005 at 08:24 AM

[color=blue]
>By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal[/color]
[color=blue]
>Our item yesterday on the Democrats' >antimilitary attitude prompted
>this response from reader Scott Wallace:[/color]
[color=blue]
>Your discussion reminded me of a friend's >decision to follow anything
>negative he said with, "But I support the >troops!" If he didn't like
>the meal he just ate, he would follow his >complaint with "But I
>support the troops!" Complaints about a bad >parking spot? "But I
>support the troops!"[/color]
[color=blue]
>It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in >which Jerry and George
>were suspected of being gay. Throughout the >whole show, anytime
>anything potentially negative towards >homosexuals was mentioned,
>someone would say, "Not that there's anything >wrong with that!" This
>would give them coverage to be as vicious or >insensitive toward the
>gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. >In later interviews,
>Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was >added in to the scripts
>late just to give them coverage. It was a wink >to political
>correctness, and it was funny because you knew >it was just a wink.[/color]
[color=blue]
>Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they >want about this
>war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war >atrocities by the
>troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war >is unwinnable--as long
>as they follow up with, "But I support the >troops!" Every time I hear
>them say they support the troops I think of >that "Seinfeld" episode.
>Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, >calculated to give them
>coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny >because you knew he didn't
>really mean it, and such is becoming the case >with the Democrats.[/color]
[color=blue]
>Democrats don't seem to understand that they're >in danger of becoming
>a tag-line joke.[/color]
[color=blue]
>This is an excellent idea. We may even be able >to work it into our
>John Kerry* footnotes.[/color]
[color=blue]
>* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts >Democrat, who by the way
>think American servicemen are war criminals and >terrorists. But he
>supports the troops![/color]
[color=blue]
>--[/color]
[color=blue]
> Scott in Florida[/color]


And just like Seinfeld was a show about *nothing* the Democrat Party is a
party about *nothing*.
Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the straight man *Seinfeld*, surrounded
by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the excitable *George Costanza*.
John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. Nancy Pelosi as *Elaine*.
Hello Newman....... Karl Rove!

-hbuck

hbuck wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> >by Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> Dec >11, 2005 at 08:24 AM[/color]
>
>[color=green]
> >By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal[/color]
>[color=green]
> >Our item yesterday on the Democrats' >antimilitary attitude prompted
> >this response from reader Scott Wallace:[/color]
>[color=green]
> >Your discussion reminded me of a friend's >decision to follow anything
> >negative he said with, "But I support the >troops!" If he didn't like
> >the meal he just ate, he would follow his >complaint with "But I
> >support the troops!" Complaints about a bad >parking spot? "But I
> >support the troops!"[/color]
>[color=green]
> >It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in >which Jerry and George
> >were suspected of being gay. Throughout the >whole show, anytime
> >anything potentially negative towards >homosexuals was mentioned,
> >someone would say, "Not that there's anything >wrong with that!" This
> >would give them coverage to be as vicious or >insensitive toward the
> >gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. >In later interviews,
> >Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was >added in to the scripts
> >late just to give them coverage. It was a wink >to political
> >correctness, and it was funny because you knew >it was just a wink.[/color]
>[color=green]
> >Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they >want about this
> >war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war >atrocities by the
> >troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war >is unwinnable--as long
> >as they follow up with, "But I support the >troops!" Every time I hear
> >them say they support the troops I think of >that "Seinfeld" episode.
> >Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, >calculated to give them
> >coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny >because you knew he didn't
> >really mean it, and such is becoming the case >with the Democrats.[/color]
>[color=green]
> >Democrats don't seem to understand that they're >in danger of becoming
> >a tag-line joke.[/color]
>[color=green]
> >This is an excellent idea. We may even be able >to work it into our
> >John Kerry* footnotes.[/color]
>[color=green]
> >* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts >Democrat, who by the way
> >think American servicemen are war criminals and >terrorists. But he
> >supports the troops![/color]
>[color=green]
> >--[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Scott in Florida[/color]
>
>
> And just like Seinfeld was a show about *nothing* the Democrat Party is a
> party about *nothing*.[/color]

Care to elaborate?
[color=blue]
> Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the straight man *Seinfeld*, surrounded[/color]

Joe Leiberman is a turncoat and will soon become irrelevant in the
party.
[color=blue]
> by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the excitable *George Costanza*.[/color]

Cute.
[color=blue]
> John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. Nancy Pelosi as *Elaine*.
> Hello Newman....... Karl Rove![/color]

I gotta say, that's a pretty funny analogy. Maybe I'll forward it to
Dyno Dean.

In article <1134346582.090307.103550@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> hbuck wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >by Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> Dec >11, 2005 at 08:24 AM[/color]
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> > >By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > >Our item yesterday on the Democrats' >antimilitary attitude prompted
> > >this response from reader Scott Wallace:[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > >Your discussion reminded me of a friend's >decision to follow anything
> > >negative he said with, "But I support the >troops!" If he didn't like
> > >the meal he just ate, he would follow his >complaint with "But I
> > >support the troops!" Complaints about a bad >parking spot? "But I
> > >support the troops!"[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > >It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in >which Jerry and George
> > >were suspected of being gay. Throughout the >whole show, anytime
> > >anything potentially negative towards >homosexuals was mentioned,
> > >someone would say, "Not that there's anything >wrong with that!" This
> > >would give them coverage to be as vicious or >insensitive toward the
> > >gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. >In later interviews,
> > >Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was >added in to the scripts
> > >late just to give them coverage. It was a wink >to political
> > >correctness, and it was funny because you knew >it was just a wink.[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > >Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they >want about this
> > >war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war >atrocities by the
> > >troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war >is unwinnable--as long
> > >as they follow up with, "But I support the >troops!" Every time I hear
> > >them say they support the troops I think of >that "Seinfeld" episode.
> > >Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, >calculated to give them
> > >coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny >because you knew he didn't
> > >really mean it, and such is becoming the case >with the Democrats.[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > >Democrats don't seem to understand that they're >in danger of becoming
> > >a tag-line joke.[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > >This is an excellent idea. We may even be able >to work it into our
> > >John Kerry* footnotes.[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > >* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts >Democrat, who by the way
> > >think American servicemen are war criminals and >terrorists. But he
> > >supports the troops![/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > >--[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Scott in Florida[/color]
> >
> >
> > And just like Seinfeld was a show about *nothing* the Democrat Party is a
> > party about *nothing*.[/color]
>
> Care to elaborate?
>[color=green]
> > Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the straight man *Seinfeld*, surrounded[/color]
>
> Joe Leiberman is a turncoat and will soon become irrelevant in the
> party.
>[color=green]
> > by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the excitable *George Costanza*.[/color]
>
> Cute.
>[color=green]
> > John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. Nancy Pelosi as *Elaine*.
> > Hello Newman....... Karl Rove![/color]
>
> I gotta say, that's a pretty funny analogy. Maybe I'll forward it to
> Dyno Dean.[/color]

rich speaks as though we are all on his side. rich, you are on the
losers side. We are not.
--

On 11 Dec 2005 16:16:22 -0800, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>hbuck wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >by Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> Dec >11, 2005 at 08:24 AM[/color]
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> >By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >Our item yesterday on the Democrats' >antimilitary attitude prompted
>> >this response from reader Scott Wallace:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >Your discussion reminded me of a friend's >decision to follow anything
>> >negative he said with, "But I support the >troops!" If he didn't like
>> >the meal he just ate, he would follow his >complaint with "But I
>> >support the troops!" Complaints about a bad >parking spot? "But I
>> >support the troops!"[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in >which Jerry and George
>> >were suspected of being gay. Throughout the >whole show, anytime
>> >anything potentially negative towards >homosexuals was mentioned,
>> >someone would say, "Not that there's anything >wrong with that!" This
>> >would give them coverage to be as vicious or >insensitive toward the
>> >gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. >In later interviews,
>> >Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was >added in to the scripts
>> >late just to give them coverage. It was a wink >to political
>> >correctness, and it was funny because you knew >it was just a wink.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they >want about this
>> >war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war >atrocities by the
>> >troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war >is unwinnable--as long
>> >as they follow up with, "But I support the >troops!" Every time I hear
>> >them say they support the troops I think of >that "Seinfeld" episode.
>> >Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, >calculated to give them
>> >coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny >because you knew he didn't
>> >really mean it, and such is becoming the case >with the Democrats.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >Democrats don't seem to understand that they're >in danger of becoming
>> >a tag-line joke.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >This is an excellent idea. We may even be able >to work it into our
>> >John Kerry* footnotes.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts >Democrat, who by the way
>> >think American servicemen are war criminals and >terrorists. But he
>> >supports the troops![/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >--[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Scott in Florida[/color]
>>
>>
>> And just like Seinfeld was a show about *nothing* the Democrat Party is a
>> party about *nothing*.[/color]
>
>Care to elaborate?[/color]

Sure the Democratic party is for NOTHING....

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the straight man *Seinfeld*, surrounded[/color]
>
>Joe Leiberman is a turncoat and will soon become irrelevant in the
>party.[/color]

Joe Leiberman is one of the only Democrats that make any sense...

If that is turncoat then you guys are going to lose so badly in 06 and
08 that the Libertarian's will pull ahead of you...

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the excitable *George Costanza*.[/color]
>
>Cute.
>[color=green]
>> John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. Nancy Pelosi as *Elaine*.
>> Hello Newman....... Karl Rove![/color]
>
>I gotta say, that's a pretty funny analogy. Maybe I'll forward it to
>Dyno Dean.[/color]
--

Scott in Florida

"The benevolent dbu" <relaxand@smelltheroses.com> wrote in message
news:relaxand-C092D9.17045011122005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <1134340444.234561.121720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The benevolent dbu wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > In article <pan.2005.12.11.17.33.04.430802@gmail.com>,
>> > "Learning Richard" <learningrichDOTDOTDOT@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
>> > >
>> > > > In article <k1aop1t5h58rh19a4bock786hth1jii53c@4ax.com>,
>> > > > Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the
>> > > >> way
>> > > >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
>> > > >> supports the troops!
>> > >
>> > > What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the
>> > > absolutely
>> > > dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
>> > > record?
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
>> > > >
>> > > > Democrates, we are on to you.
>> > >
>> > > Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.
>> >
>> > It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
>> > for at this time.[/color]
>>
>> Oh. You don't know how to spell then. Just like your genius buddy
>> Charles of Kanker Sore.
>>
>> Here allow me to help.
>>
>> d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t
>>
>> And here's how you spell Republican:
>>
>> f-e-l-o-n[/color]
>
> rich is not following along again.
> --
>
>
>
>[/color]

Unlearned Dick just don't get it. He's still on the Liberal Plantation.

Charles